The families of 9/11 victims do not feel that terrorists should be tried in civilian court. They may have some good points.

We adamantly oppose prosecuting the 9/11 conspirators in Article III courts, which would provide them with the very rights that may make it possible for them to escape the justice which they so richly deserve. We believe that military commissions, which have a long and honorable history in this country dating back to the Revolutionary War, are the appropriate legal forum for the individuals who declared war on America. With utter disdain for all norms of decency and humanity, and in defiance of the laws of warfare accepted by all civilized nations, these individuals targeted tens of thousands of civilian non-combatants, brutally killing 3,000 men, women and children, injuring thousands more, and terrorizing millions.

On May 21, you stated that military commissions, promulgated by congressional legislation and recently reformed with even greater protections for defendants, are a legal and appropriate forum to try individuals captured pursuant the 2001 AUMF, passed by Congress in response to the attack on America. Nevertheless, you announced a new policy requiring that Al-Qaeda terrorists should be tried in Article III courts "whenever feasible."

We strongly object to the creation of a two-tier system of justice for terrorists in which those responsible for the death of thousands on 9/11 will be treated as common criminals and afforded the kind of platinum due process accorded American citizens, yet members of Al Qaeda who aspire to kill Americans but who do not yet have blood on their hands, will be treated as war criminals. To date, you have offered no explanation or justification for this contradiction, even as you readily acknowledge that the 9/11 conspirators, now designated "unprivileged enemy belligerents," are appropriately accused of war crimes. We believe that this two-tier system, in which war criminals receive more due process protections than would-be war criminals, will be mocked and rejected in the court of world opinion as an ill-conceived contrivance aimed, not at justice, but at the appearance moral authority.

The public has a right to know that prosecuting the 9/11 conspirators in federal courts will result in a plethora of legal and procedural problems that will severely limit or even jeopardize the successful prosecution of their cases. Ordinary criminal trials do not allow for the exigencies associated with combatants captured in war, in which evidence is not collected with CSI-type chain-of-custody standards. None of the 9/11 conspirators were given the Miranda warnings mandated in Article III courts. Prosecutors contend that the lengthy, self-incriminating tutorials Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others gave to CIA interrogators about 9/11 and other terrorist operations--called "pivotal for the war against Al-Qaeda" in a recently released, declassified 2005 CIA report--may be excluded in federal trials. Further, unlike military commissions, all of the 9/11 cases will be vulnerable in federal court to defense motions that their prosecutions violate the Speedy Trial Act. Indeed, the judge presiding in the case of Ahmed Ghailani, accused of participating in the 1998 bombing of the American Embassy in Kenya, killing 212 people, has asked for that issue to be briefed by the defense. Ghailani was indicted in 1998, captured in Pakistan in 2004, and held at Guantanamo Bay until 2009.

There is no guarantee that Mr. Mohammed and his co-conspirators will plead guilty, as in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, whose prosecution nevertheless took four years, and who is currently attempting to recant that plea. Their attorneys will be given wide latitude to mount a defense that turns the trial into a shameful circus aimed at vilifying agents of the CIA for alleged acts of "torture," casting the American government and our valiant military as a force of evil instead of a force for good in places of the Muslim world where Al Qaeda and the Taliban are waging a brutal war against them and the local populations. For the families of those who died on September 11, the most obscene aspect of giving Constitutional protections to those who planned the attacks with the intent of inflicting maximum terror on their victims in the last moments of their lives will be the opportunities this affords defense lawyers to cast their clients as victims

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators are asking to plead guilty, now, before a duly-constituted military commission. Mr. President, the families of their victims have a right to know, why don't you let them?

I didn't copy the whole thing here, so you really should read the entire letter.

Fox gave both sides of the story. Maybe the Dems are right, how could a 'REAL' news agency tell that there is more than 1 side to a story.

dnf777

11-16-2009, 09:01 AM

Just for fun, I'd like to see the WhiteHouse release a statement declaring which way Obama wipes himself.....front to back or back to front.....just in order to see the illuminating, fair and balanced news segments that Fox would assemble to attack him for being incorrect! I can see republican wiping-experts commenting on Fox&Friends how this is costing jobs and putting Americans at risk!

It's really gone beyond absurd.

Gerry Clinchy

11-16-2009, 10:05 AM

Just for fun, I'd like to see the WhiteHouse release a statement declaring which way Obama wipes himself.....front to back or back to front.....just in order to see the illuminating, fair and balanced news segments that Fox would assemble to attack him for being incorrect! I can see republican wiping-experts commenting on Fox&Friends how this is costing jobs and putting Americans at risk!

It's really gone beyond absurd.

:confused: This has something to do with the information in the articles?

road kill

11-16-2009, 10:22 AM

:confused: This has something to do with the information in the articles?

Like I said, they have to talk about what they know about.:D

dnf777

11-16-2009, 11:07 AM

:confused: This has something to do with the information in the articles?

It has EVERYTHING to do with it! It doesn't matter WHAT Obama does or says, the republican machine in anti-Obama, prima facia, de facto, no matter what! It's gotten comical to watch the reactions!

When GW Bush brought the 9-11 hijacker to Va for trial, he was praised. When Obama does the same thing, he's hounded by the very same people.

I just find it amusing, and used a colorful example, that's all. But it has everything to do with politics today.

Boxers vs. Briefs regards,
dave

WaterDogRem

11-16-2009, 12:56 PM

It's absurd that they will have the same legal American rights as you and I. This was a clear act of war and should be handled as such!

dnf777

11-16-2009, 01:03 PM

It's absurd that they will have the same legal American rights as you and I. This was a clear act of war and should be handled as such!

Then do it. What are we waiting for? Give them some type of day in court. If they're guilty, hang them. If they're innocent, set them free. This just locking people up without a trial or legal recourse is precisely what we strive to avoid in this country. Until now, that is.

Fowlfeller1100

11-16-2009, 01:06 PM

Just to play the devils advocate my understaing of the logic behind a civil trial is that it will help prevent the "warrior" image that Al-Queda seeks to cultivate, perhaps to be tried like a petty thief will be an insult. Also don't forget that if we do in fact kill this guy he may become a martyr, theres a good shot we would be better of to simply keep him incarcerated.

Gerry Clinchy

11-16-2009, 01:10 PM

dnf777

When GW Bush brought the 9-11 hijacker to Va for trial, he was praised. When Obama does the same thing, he's hounded by the very same people.

Truthfully, I cannot recall the details of that trial. Was it civil trial or military?

However, is there some reason that the VA trial situation might have been different from this one?

The original post did NOT come from a news agency like Fox. It came to me as an independent URL. So, Fox was the news agency giving both sides of the discussion

Leddyman

11-16-2009, 02:21 PM

dnf777

Truthfully, I cannot recall the details of that trial. Was it civil trial or military?

However, is there some reason that the VA trial situation might have been different from this one?

The original post did NOT come from a news agency like Fox. It came to me as an independent URL. So, Fox was the news agency giving both sides of the discussion

I believe he was arrested in the U.S. No? He was already here and arrested by law enforcement. I could just hear it if GW sent him to Guantanamo. That would have been priceless watching CNN anchors stroking out on TV.

Hew

11-16-2009, 05:27 PM

Just for fun, I'd like to see the WhiteHouse release a statement declaring which way Obama wipes himself.....front to back or back to front.....just in order to see the illuminating, fair and balanced news segments that Fox would assemble to attack him for being incorrect! I can see republican wiping-experts commenting on Fox&Friends how this is costing jobs and putting Americans at risk!

I assure you of two things: that nearly half the population or more thinks this is a stupid idea now, and most will know it was a stupid idea after they learn of all of the ramifications. That Obama has already distanced himself from the decision (laughably so, I might add) speaks volumes. Obama will regret this decision. But yeah, you're right...Fox shouldn't report any of that...I mean that would be crazy for them to present an alternative viewpoint to your Messiah's. I'm just shocked that your viewpoint has changed...given how you thought the press was a lap dog for Bush and all.

Bob Gutermuth

11-16-2009, 05:44 PM

If AG Holder is able to judge shop, the terrorist scumbags will walk. After they get done complaining about the waterboarding(which they deserved) the failure to get Mirandized etc etc, the whole bunh will skate. This entire thing should be handled by a military tribunal. They are war criminals and terrorists, not ordinary criminals. Anyone remember what kind of trial the defendants at Nuremberg got?

road kill

11-16-2009, 05:57 PM

Here is a "colorful" opinion;

http://wcbstv.com/politics/911.trial.paterson.2.1316155.html

Is the Gov. a Republican??

dnf777

11-16-2009, 06:42 PM

..given how you thought the press was a lap dog for Bush and all.

Not just me.

Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush, Eric Boehlert 2006, FreePress, Simon&Schuster

You might find it interesting, even though it's not by Beck or Hannity. :)

JDogger

11-16-2009, 09:55 PM

Why would we not prosecute crimes commited in the USA, in the USA? Are we so afraid that our system might be imperfect? Do we trually need to take the prosecutions offshore? What, we can't handle it? We have to hide in a foreign country, or a rented military base? We can't take care of ourselves, here, at home? Bring 'em here. Charge them. Try them. Convict them. Execute them. What's so difficult?
My God, if you wish to be viewed as the pre-eminent moral authority, then act it. Get it over and done with, and move on.
JD

PS. Substantial enough for you, RK?

road kill

11-17-2009, 07:24 AM

Why would we not prosecute crimes commited in the USA, in the USA? Are we so afraid that our system might be imperfect? Do we trually need to take the prosecutions offshore? What, we can't handle it? We have to hide in a foreign country, or a rented military base? We can't take care of ourselves, here, at home? Bring 'em here. Charge them. Try them. Convict them. Execute them. What's so difficult?
My God, if you wish to be viewed as the pre-eminent moral authority, then act it. Get it over and done with, and move on.
JD

The terrorists won't be on trial, to RP's glee...the Bush administration will be!!

ACLU regards!!:D

dnf777

11-17-2009, 08:18 AM

Nice post.
1 flaw.
Political Activists on the bench.

The terrorists won't be on trial, to RP's glee...the Bush administration will be!!

ACLU regards!!:D

Come on, RK! Don't think there weren't progressives, even liberals killed or had loved ones killed in the 9-11 attack, that would want to see him at the end of a rope!

But, although it would make us feel better to see him stretch a rope, I honestly believe it would be a FAR worse punishment in HIS eyes to spend his life in a hole in the ground, denying him the martyrdom he so desires.

road kill

11-17-2009, 08:24 AM

Come on, RK! Don't think there weren't progressives, even liberals killed or had loved ones killed in the 9-11 attack, that would want to see him at the end of a rope!

But, although it would make us feel better to see him stretch a rope, I honestly believe it would be a FAR worse punishment in HIS eyes to spend his life in a hole in the ground, denying him the martyrdom he so desires.
dnf777, I thought you had my "colorful" posts on ignore.

No, I don't think these guys will get convicted in NYC.
Even though they have confessed, this will be a circus conducted by the "lame stream" media!

Oh, and the ACLU who have already stated their intentions.
They are not about convicting terrorists.
This will be about embarrassing the Bush admin.

Old and cynical regards,

dnf777

11-17-2009, 08:44 AM

dnf777, I thought you had my "colorful" posts on ignore.

No, I don't think these guys will get convicted in NYC.
Even though they have confessed, this will be a circus conducted by the "lame stream" media!

Oh, and the ACLU who have already stated their intentions.
They are not about convicting terrorists.
This will be about embarrassing the Bush admin.

Old and cynical regards,

I would neve ignore your posts. You're one of the voices of near-reason! ;-)

And of course not, the ACLU is not about convicting terrorists. The military or justice dept are. The ACLU is just what it's name implies: to protect YOUR civil liberties. They always get the wackos on tv, but I doubt you would want to live in a country where you did not enjoy the liberties that you do, many of which are defended by the ACLU in landmark cases. Its much more than "In God we Trust" off of coins! That's silly. But ensuring the Bill of Rights is not abused or neglected isn't.

cotts135

11-17-2009, 09:21 AM

dnf777, I thought you had my "colorful" posts on ignore.

No, I don't think these guys will get convicted in NYC.
Even though they have confessed, this will be a circus conducted by the "lame stream" media!

Oh, and the ACLU who have already stated their intentions.
They are not about convicting terrorists.
This will be about embarrassing the Bush admin.

Old and cynical regards,

There is no way these guys are walking. They will be convicted in any trial held in NYC to thing otherwise is living in an alternate universe. A friendly wager maybe?

road kill

11-17-2009, 09:25 AM

There is no way these guys are walking. They will be convicted in any trial held in NYC to thing otherwise is living in an alternate universe. A friendly wager maybe?

The Bush admin?
This will be about them and how the terrorists were forced to do this by the terrible US policies set forth by President Bush.

It will be like pornography for the likes of RP!!:D

dnf777

11-17-2009, 10:12 AM

There is no way these guys are walking. They will be convicted in any trial held in NYC to thing otherwise is living in an alternate universe. A friendly wager maybe?

I like the way your offer of a wager was conveniently ignored!

I guess talk is cheap! :rolleyes:

ducknwork

11-17-2009, 12:26 PM

If AG Holder is able to judge shop, the terrorist scumbags will walk. After they get done complaining about the waterboarding(which they deserved) the failure to get Mirandized etc etc, the whole bunh will skate. This entire thing should be handled by a military tribunal. They are war criminals and terrorists, not ordinary criminals. Anyone remember what kind of trial the defendants at Nuremberg got?

I have never seen you use so many sentences in one post! Wow!:razz::D

BG is King of the one liner regards,

Leddyman

11-17-2009, 07:48 PM

I want to ask a serious question. It seems to me that I am hearing people say that we are going to try them in a civilian court, but they are not going to be let go. So are we saying that we are going to give them a fair trial, but we are guaranteeing a guilty verdict? Does anybody see a problem with that?

To be clear, I think we should try them before a military tribunal and stand them in front of a wall and BANG.

But who are they kidding? A fair civilian trial for these guys. Any civilian court would have to let them go on constitutional grounds. Never mirandized, not given lawyers until very late in the game, harsh interrogation, civilian court has to let 'em go.

What is going to happen if they walk?

Pals

11-17-2009, 08:21 PM

Holder will be the fall guy. And Dear Leader will give some teleprompter speech making it the fault of the former 3 administrations.

JDogger

11-17-2009, 11:10 PM

Holder will be the fall guy. And Dear Leader will give some teleprompter speech making it the fault of the former 3 administrations.

I don't believe this trial will be about the Bush administration. I don't think anyone wants to go there. (Administrations change you know, why set a precedent you may not want to live with later.)
Can NYC and the feds pull off this prosecution? Sure.

Don't you think that this has maybe been the plan to close Gitmo all along?

Federal prosecutions for some, Military tribunals for others. An incremental decrease in detainees. Did you really think we were gonna just send 'em all home tomorrow? I see a strategy unveiling here. The closing of Gitmo as a slow, measured event. Not an all or nothing, to occur instantainously.
No one ever wanted that.
Someone mentioned AG Holder, judge shopping.
This is not a FT.
It is prosecution of those that attacked us. What possible political advantage coud be gained by not fully prosecuting the few remaining 9/11 conspirators?
We prosecute the drug cartels that operate along our borders as criminals. Are they less terrorists?

RK fears political activist judges. Many of the Fed. judges sitting today were appointed by GWB. Should we also fear their political activism?

JD

code3retrievers

11-18-2009, 12:23 AM

How many here would like to serve on the jury?

Talk about serious ramifications for you and your family. Also since the Obama administration wants to give these terrorists some of our constitutional rights, what is going to happen when they appeal due to the fact they did not have a speedy trial? Its been eight years for some.

Military tribunal is the only way to go.

Hew

11-18-2009, 12:31 AM

Federal prosecutions for some, Military tribunals for others. Can you answer for me why it's necessary for some to be tried in federal court but OK for some of them to have military tribunals? What's the practical distinction? If some of the murderous scum are worthy of our court system, why aren't they all? An incremental decrease in detainees. Did you really think we were gonna just send 'em all home tomorrow? I see a strategy unveiling here. The closing of Gitmo as a slow, measured event. Not an all or nothing, to occur instantainously. Except for trying a few of them (or as many as Holder, his wife and brother-in-law decide, apparently) in federal court, that is EXACTLY what was happening before Obama was elected. You people were up in arms about that. Now it's fine, eh?

...............

Hew

11-18-2009, 12:48 AM

How many here would like to serve on the jury? Exactly. How'd you like to be the judge? How'd you like to be a janitor in that courthouse? How'd you like to be a tourist in NY when the verdicts or sentencing is announced? How'd you like to be one of the hundreds of NY cops assigned to security every day? How'd you like to be a taxpayer helping to pay for this farce of a trial? Scratch that; you'll soon know. And where do you find an impartial jury? I'm sure there's a ton of ramifications that have not even been thought of yet, to go along with the arm's length list that's already been discussed.

Talk about serious ramifications for you and your family. Also since the Obama administration wants to give these terrorists some of our constitutional rights, what is going to happen when they appeal due to the fact they did not have a speedy trial? Its been eight years for some. If the same judicial rules that applied to run-of-the-mill criminals were applied to KSM et al then they would all walk. But there's no way that any judge or jury will want to be known as the one who let KSM et al go free. There's no way these scum get a "fair" trial and there's no way they're found anything but guilty. And that's why this dog and pony show of a trial is a GD farce. We know they're guilty. The world knows they're guilty. They've admitted they're guilty. The military trials should have continued as planned. But Obama and Holder think they're going to cleanse us of Bush's supposed sins and all they're doing is opening up a can of worms and making us less safe in the process. Sleep tight, New Yorkers.

Military tribunal is the only way to go.

...............

Bob Gutermuth

11-18-2009, 09:46 AM

A military tribunal, like the one that convicted the German saboteurs in Operation Pastorius is the way to go. These scumbags tried to destroy the American way of life and now they get to use our Constitutional protections to save themselves? I think all they deserve is a speedy military trial and a first class execution. In the civillian system, a tame judge is going to hear these cases and likely rule in favor of the terrs.

road kill

11-18-2009, 09:57 AM

I don't believe this trial will be about the Bush administration. I don't think anyone wants to go there. (Administrations change you know, why set a precedent you may not want to live with later.)
Can NYC and the feds pull off this prosecution? Sure.

Don't you think that this has maybe been the plan to close Gitmo all along?

Federal prosecutions for some, Military tribunals for others. An incremental decrease in detainees. Did you really think we were gonna just send 'em all home tomorrow? I see a strategy unveiling here. The closing of Gitmo as a slow, measured event. Not an all or nothing, to occur instantainously.
No one ever wanted that.
Someone mentioned AG Holder, judge shopping.
This is not a FT.
It is prosecution of those that attacked us. What possible political advantage coud be gained by not fully prosecuting the few remaining 9/11 conspirators?
We prosecute the drug cartels that operate along our borders as criminals. Are they less terrorists?

RK fears political activist judges. Many of the Fed. judges sitting today were appointed by GWB. Should we also fear their political activism?
JD

But even more sitting Federal Judges in NY were appointed by President Clinton.
Yes....we should fear their activism.

But you already knew that!!:D

Hew

11-18-2009, 11:32 PM

On the day Obama was elected I didn't suspect that I'd agree with many of his policies, but I presumed that he'd at least be competent, and that the people he placed in top positions would at least be competent. Read the following exchanges between Sen. Lindsey Graham and AG Eric Holder yesterday and tell me that you jaw doesn't hit the ground at Holder's ineptness:

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --

GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.

and then:

GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?

HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.

GRAHAM: Where would you try him?

HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]

GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?

HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --

GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.

The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.

For starters, Holder didn't know if there was any precedent for trying an enemy combatant captured abroad in criminal court. Really? You don't know that, Holder? You weren't the least bit curious as to whether your admin. was breaking new ground? And if you weren't aware of that, I can't believe you gave any serious thought to the future, down-the-road ramifications of your decision.

The second exchange elicited the most "are you f'ing kidding me?!?" thoughts. Do you mean to tell the American people, AG Holder, that given your current plans to drag the murdering scum into federal criminal court, that you've given no thought, and have no game plan for the dispensation of future murdering scum that our people may capture going forward from here. Scary.

JDogger

11-19-2009, 12:02 AM

But even more sitting Federal Judges in NY were appointed by President Clinton.
Yes....we should fear their activism.

But you already knew that!!:D

So... you're a glass half empty guy... what can I say...I'm not. I think we can pull it off. Do you have so little faith in our system, the system that that we're sending people to die for to protect, that it is so imperfect that it makes a mockery of what they fight for? What American system do you wish for? They were bad to us, so... let's be bad to them...that'll show 'em, we'll give you tit for tat. I thought we sat on a higher ground. If we bring ourselves down to the level of the people who hate us and seek to destroy us, they win their battle. They've already won so much. lets not give them complete victory. Twenty years ago i could fly to Florida to visit my mother with no more than a ticket and a boarding pass, now i stand in line, take my shoes off, have my bathroom stuff in tiny bottles, cant even have a nail clipper in my pocket, but we're safe... gimme a break...we allowed the terrorists to win!

JD

WaterDogRem

11-19-2009, 12:08 AM

I'm actually watching a replay of the Justice Department Oversite hearing with Holder on Cspan right now and boy does Holder look stupid. He reminds me of someone that's guilty and trying to hide somethings. Makes me wonder if he's being forced to handle this situation in this manner? If so why? I think one of the more interesting questions is, how will this affect future similar cases?

Hew

11-19-2009, 12:11 AM

So... you're a glass half empty guy... what can I say...I'm not. I think we can pull it off. Do you have so little faith in our system, the system that that we're sending people to die for to protect, that it is so imperfect that it makes a mockery of what they fight for? What American system do you wish for?
What American system do you wish them to be tried under? The criminal justice system that says that criminal suspects must be Mirandized? That's what our laws proscribe, but that's not what KSM and his homies will experience. The fact is that there is NO system in place for what Holder is about to do. Holder, the trial judge, and the appeal judges (is there any doubt that this will drag on for YEARS through the appeals process?) will be making sh!t up on the fly. That's the "system" you want to send people to die for to protect?

JDogger

11-19-2009, 12:27 AM

What American system do you wish them to be tried under? The criminal justice system that says that criminal suspects must be Mirandized? That's what our laws proscribe, but that's not what KSM and his homies will experience. The fact is that there is NO system in place for what Holder is about to do. Holder, the trial judge, and the appeal judges (is there any doubt that this will drag on for YEARS through the appeals process?) will be making sh!t up on the fly. That's the "system" you want to send people to die for to protect?

and the alternative is?

This was a crime committed on American soil, against Americans. Do we just as 'better americans', just disappear them?

JD

Bob Gutermuth

11-19-2009, 12:56 AM

Ain't it wonderful these terr cretins are going to beat the rap at the behest of Holder, Osama and the ACLU. The scumbags will likely sue for false imprisonment after they are acquitted.:mad:

Hew

11-19-2009, 01:47 AM

and the alternative is?
The military tribunals are tailor made for this and is how Bush and Congress were proceeding (in spite of the constant starts/stops and meddling of federal judges). Obama and Holder have already said that some of the Gitmo scum will be tried by the military tribunals. If that form of justice/trial is good enough for some of them, why isn't it good enough for all of them?

Isn't one of the stated purposes of trying them in New York to demonstrate to the world our fair and judicial justice system? When you already have the Atty General and the President saying, in a nutshell, "Don't worry, they'll be found guilty and will fry for it" how just and fair do you think this whole farce will play with the rest of the world? Imagine if Achmadinnerjacket pronounced just before trying Americans in an Iranian kangaroo court that "the Americans will have a fair trial and then will be found guilty."

dnf777

11-19-2009, 06:02 AM

The military tribunals are tailor made for this and is how Bush and Congress were proceeding (in spite of the constant starts/stops and meddling of federal judges). Obama and Holder have already said that some of the Gitmo scum will be tried by the military tribunals. If that form of justice/trial is good enough for some of them, why isn't it good enough for all of them?

I thought the 9-11 hijakers (the ones NOT on the planes) were tried and convicted in Arlington, Va? Am I wrong?

road kill

11-19-2009, 07:33 AM

So... you're a glass half empty guy... what can I say...I'm not. I think we can pull it off. Do you have so little faith in our system, the system that that we're sending people to die for to protect, that it is so imperfect that it makes a mockery of what they fight for? What American system do you wish for? They were bad to us, so... let's be bad to them...that'll show 'em, we'll give you tit for tat. I thought we sat on a higher ground. If we bring ourselves down to the level of the people who hate us and seek to destroy us, they win their battle. They've already won so much. lets not give them complete victory. Twenty years ago i could fly to Florida to visit my mother with no more than a ticket and a boarding pass, now i stand in line, take my shoes off, have my bathroom stuff in tiny bottles, cant even have a nail clipper in my pocket, but we're safe... gimme a break...we allowed the terrorists to win!

JD
Have you been awake recently?
Note the AG yesterday.
This group is in over it's head.
They played the "hate Bush" card to the max.
Almost everything this group does is geared toward blaming Bush for everything!

No......I have NO faith in them, 0, nadda!!

dnf777

11-19-2009, 07:38 AM

They played the "hate Bush" card to the max.
Almost everything this group does is geared toward blaming Bush for everything!

Kind of a "sister forum" to this site, which seems to be an everything hate Obumma...Osama.....Obongo.....wait, what's his real name again......OBAMA...that's it, I forgot it after reading this forum for so long. (not that everything this group does is geared toward blaming Obama)

If it's good for the goose regards.....

Hew

11-19-2009, 07:41 AM

I thought the 9-11 hijakers (the ones NOT on the planes) were tried and convicted in Arlington, Va? Am I wrong?
The "20th hijacker," Zacharias Moussai (sp?) was tried in Federal Court in VA. Read about the trial on wikipedia or wherever...a 3 ring circus of courtroom antics, procedural battles and fights over what was considered state secrets and what wasn't. The differences between Moussai's arrest/trial and KSM et al's captures/trials is stark; the most significant being that Moussai was arrested in Minnesota by FBI agents and was immediately treated as a suspect (with all the rights and assumptions of innocence). The others were captured in gritty 3rd world shatholes and immediately treated as enemy combatants with little rights and no presumption of innocence. Those differences are HUGE if you then proceed to attempt to try them using the same judicial process. As evidence of what a cluster-you-know-what, complete can-o-worms Holder/Obama have opened, they STILL do not have a coherent response to what/how bin Laden would be treated if he was captured in Pakistan tomorrow.

dnf777

11-19-2009, 08:54 AM

complete can-o-worms Holder/Obama have opened, .

WHO? Who created these "limbo" judicial set-ups? Who inherited them? Who had these guys in jail for 3-8 years and did NOTHING but hand off the problem, and the blame???

I read you post and understand perfectly what your point is, and share the same concerns. Except for who created the mess! That blame resides solely with Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Gonzales, and Mukasey. The current admin is trying to clean up this mess in a way that ensures the guilty are found guilty and punished, without showing the world that we only selectively follow the letter of our law when it suits us, and behave like a banana republic when we want to.

road kill

11-19-2009, 09:01 AM

WHO? Who created these "limbo" judicial set-ups? Who inherited them? Who had these guys in jail for 3-8 years and did NOTHING but hand off the problem, and the blame???

I read you post and understand perfectly what your point is, and share the same concerns. Except for who created the mess! That blame resides solely with Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Gonzales, and Mukasey. The current admin is trying to clean up this mess in a way that ensures the guilty are found guilty and punished, without showing the world that we only selectively follow the letter of our law when it suits us, and behave like a banana republic when we want to.

YEP, just like I said........:rolleyes:

Hew

11-19-2009, 11:10 AM

WHO? Who created these "limbo" judicial set-ups? Obama and Holder just did. The Bush admin, in conjunction with Congress, were in the process of trying them by military tribunal; very much like other prisoners/enemy combantants have been since the beginning of our country. Obama and Holder are the ones turning things on their ear and drastically deviating from historical precedent. Who inherited them? Who had these guys in jail for 3-8 years and did NOTHING but hand off the problem, and the blame??? You're apparently not up to speed. Maybe wiki up Gitmo, military tribunals, etc. and you'll find what Bush and Congress were doing/trying to do.

I read you post and understand perfectly what your point is, and share the same concerns. But all you want to talk about is who is to blame...you know, the hardcore conservative in you and the longing for setting the record straight and all. :rolleyes: Yeah, we get it...you blame Bush for handing the problem to Obama. For the sake of argument, let's pretend you're right. Now what? Compound the problem with added stupidity and naivete? Except for who created the mess! That blame resides solely with Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Gonzales, and Mukasey. The current admin is trying to clean up this mess in a way that ensures the guilty are found guilty and punished, without showing the world that we only selectively follow the letter of our law when it suits us, and behave like a banana republic when we want to. LOL. You sound like Holder..."we want to give 'em a fair trial followed by a fair hanging." Spoken just like the head banana of a banana republic.

.......................

dnf777

11-19-2009, 11:20 AM

.......................

Hew, once again we're going around in circles. You're doing the exact thing you accusing me of doing....acknowledging the problem, then blaming the other guy.

How can you say Obama just turned things on it's ear by declaring a civilian trial, when Bush has already done so? If bush was "doing/trying to do"...why didn't he just do it, and not leave this legal mess for the next guy? We're not going to reach an agreement here as to who screwed this all up, but why not as RP suggested a friendly wager, since all on the right are convinced he's gonna walk? A sixer of your choice that he is convicted and sentenced to either life or death??

Jay Hinton

11-19-2009, 11:37 AM

http://rochesterhomepage.net/content/fulltext/?cid=135661

75 million reasons why a civilian trial is not a good idea. It's already a circus side show, and the trial hasn't even started.

Bob Gutermuth

11-19-2009, 11:40 AM

What a shame that Judge Roy Bean or Judge Isaac parker is no longer alive. Either of them sitting on this case would ensure a quick trial and public hangings for the scumbags.

Hew

11-19-2009, 11:55 AM

Hew, once again we're going around in circles. You're doing the exact thing you accusing me of doing....acknowledging the problem, then blaming the other guy. For argument's sake I stipulated that you were right and it was all Bush's fault. I then asked what we should do now. You can't come up with an answer, apparently.

How can you say Obama just turned things on it's ear by declaring a civilian trial, when Bush has already done so? You're right. You are going around in circles. You made this point before. I refuted it. You didn't bother to even try arguing that I was wrong. If bush was "doing/trying to do"...why didn't he just do it, and not leave this legal mess for the next guy? As I suggested before, you should probably get your wiki on and read up on all the judicial machinations re: trying the Gitmo prisoners. I'm not going to spoonfeed you. We're not going to reach an agreement here as to who screwed this all up, but why not as RP suggested a friendly wager, since all on the right are convinced he's gonna walk? A sixer of your choice that he is convicted and sentenced to either life or death?? And in what fantasy world do you reside where Hew made that assertion? In the real world, I said just the opposite.

As explained, the case that was in VA was of an individual that was captured in MN and it was treated as a criminal investigation from the beginning.

These cases are of individuals that were captured on the field of battle and treated as intelligence sources first. They were afforded no rights and should not have been. Now they are going to be tried in civilian courts where the rights not originally afforded to them will come into play. Just the issue of self-incrimination may screw the pooch.

However, there is another issue...that of exposing secure information. In the trial after the first WTC bombing the defense managed to get slipped into evidence a list of potential al Quaeda subjects and presto...bin Laden knew we were looking for him and he changed his means and methods of operations.

Eric

cotts135

11-19-2009, 06:37 PM

This whole issue of trying the terrorists in a civilian court or a military tribunal has become a big mess that the Obama administration has made worse. Yesterday the Attorney General looked like an idiot. As far as I can see the outcome of this trial is already determined both Holder and President Obama said so in so many words. This is the definition of a show trial.

In reality the administration has set up two sets of rules for one class of prisoner

'Administration officials say they expect that as many as 40 of the 215 detainees at Guantanamo will be tried in federal court or military commissions . . . . and about 75 more have been deemed too dangerous to release but cannot be prosecuted because of evidentiary issues and limits on the use of classified material' . . . If true, that means that there are 75 so-called 'Fifth Category' detainees who might be subject to indefinite detention without trial" -- The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, yesterday, quoting The Washington Post.

No wonder Holder had a tough time with congress yesterday. There was no defining principle on which he was speaking. Why is it that the our legal system is good for 5 terrorists but not the other 210,or vice versa, and how about that other category of 75 terrorists who appear to have no chance at a trial at all. Our we now a country that holds people indefinitely without a chance at any trial? It appears that we are and it just makes me wonder what our soldiers and airman are really fighting for.

Roger Perry

11-19-2009, 06:49 PM

It's absurd that they will have the same legal American rights as you and I. This was a clear act of war and should be handled as such!

I would imagine that the victims families would love to be in court when these terrorists are found guilty and condemmed to death.

Roger Perry

11-19-2009, 06:56 PM

dnf777, I thought you had my "colorful" posts on ignore.

No, I don't think these guys will get convicted in NYC.
Even though they have confessed, this will be a circus conducted by the "lame stream" media!

Oh, and the ACLU who have already stated their intentions.
They are not about convicting terrorists.
This will be about embarrassing the Bush admin.

Old and cynical regards,

So this is the real reason you would not want a trial in the USA, because the bush admin would be embarrassed.

road kill

11-19-2009, 07:20 PM

So this is the real reason you would not want a trial in the USA, because the bush admin would be embarrassed.
The efforts will ultimately embarrass your side, which is near impossible, because you have no shame!!:D

Clever effort though!!;)

WaterDogRem

11-19-2009, 10:53 PM

I would imagine that the victims families would love to be in court when these terrorists are found guilty and condemmed to death.

I'm sure they would like that choice, but have you been listening to how the families would like and have been asking this adminstation to handle this?

cotts135

11-20-2009, 07:22 AM

There seems to be this misconception that having a Military Tribunal is going to solve all the problems that a civilian trial will present. Of course the main stream media although not directly promoting this, it is guilty in fostering this believe.

I came across this pdf file that gives the history and use of Military tribunals. Reading just some of it gave me a different impression than what is being said in our newspapers and tv. Anyone interested in reading it can find it here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/rl32458.pdf

Something else I came across was also interesting.
From the blog Emptywheel an interview with David Frakt on Material surpport charges and Military Commissions

I had another couple of thoughts about why the 9/11 case was transferred to federal court, aside from purely political considerations. The Judge in the case, Colonel Stephen Henley, had made a couple of rulings in the Jawad case (my case) which made the government very nervous. First, he ruled in response to a motion to dismiss that I filed on the basis of torture that he “beyond peradventure” had the power to dismiss all charges on the basis of pretrial abuse of the detainee. Although he declined to dismiss the charges against Jawad, the fact that he would even entertain such a thought was very frightening for the prosecution, since they knew that other detainees had been tortured and abused far worse that Jawad, especially the high value detainees. Judge Henley also indicated that he was declining to dismiss because there were other remedies available, such as giving extra sentencing credit against any ultimately adjudged sentence. Assuming that KSM and his brethren were to get the death penalty, the only remedy for their prior abuse would be to commute the death penalty, the government’s worse nightmare. Also, in response to multiple motions to suppress statements that I filed, he had ruled not only that Jawad’s initial confession was obtained by torture, but that all subsequent confessions were presumptively tainted by the earlier tortured confession. He held that the burden was on the prosecution to prove that subsequently obtained statements were no longer tainted by the earlier torture or coercion. Judge Henley applied the law correctly in each of these rulings, applying well-settled principles of due process from U.S. Supreme Court cases. These rulings provide an opportunity for the defense to put the U.S.’ treatment of these detainees on trial, potentially for months, before ever getting to the merits of the case. And in order for the defense to make comprehensive motions, they would have to be made privy to the full scope of the abuses that had been meted out by the U.S. on their clients and should be given the opportunity to develop such evidence in pre=trial evidentiary hearings, as I did in Mohammed Jawad’s case, including allowing the defendants to testify about the abuses they experienced. Those who claim that this type of sideshow can be avoided in federal court simply don’t understand criminal procedure. The real question will be whether the 9/11 defendants authorize their counsel to make such motions or whether they will continue to seek martyrdom and forgo the opportunity to fully litigate the torture issues.

The complete interview is here: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/11/17/david-frakt-on-material-support-charge

Roger Perry

11-20-2009, 10:08 AM

I do not see the difference between these terrorists standing trial held by the military or through the U.S. judicial system. Wasn't Saddam Hussain tried and convicted by the Iraqi court system?

Eric Johnson

11-20-2009, 11:40 AM

There's a wrinkle I hadn't thought of. These 5 are prisoners of the DoD. I've heard that Sec. Gates is considering not turning them for a civilian trial.

Eric

Sundown49 aka Otey B

11-20-2009, 02:42 PM

easy way to fix this....load them on a plane and set the auto pilot for Cape town and have half enough fuel to get there,,,,,,,,.Hell of a lot cheaper than spending money for a circus.